HISTORY of SUSSEX
In the Middle Ages any felon who had taken sanctuary in a church, chapel
or churchyard could remain there unharmed for forty days, during which time
he could send for the local coroner, confess his felonies and abjure the
realm, swearing to leave England by a stated port. He was entitled to make
his way to the port and leave the kingdom with impunity, but the normal
penalty for straying from the direct route or for later returning to England
was death.
The medieval Sussex abjurations of the realm have been thoroughly examined
in 'Sussex Archaeological Collections'. H. M. Whitley made an analysis of
the 13th century cases from the eyre rolls, and the present writer has printed
and discussed the surviving coroners' returns of 14th and 15th century abjurations.
There are only six of these, since in the later Middle Ages Sussex coroners
were never obliged to compile and submit formal rolls, and records of abjurations
were only summoned into a superior court, usually King's Bench, on those
rare occasions when an abjuror was found at large in the country.
By contrast, eleven Sussex abjurations, recorded by the coroners, survive
from the years 1515-1533. This can be attributed to a statute of 1487 (3
Henry VII, c.2), which required coroners to produce all their indictments
of homicide regularly before the justices of gaol delivery; the accused
who were in gaol were to be tried by the justices as before, while the indictments
of those who were not were to be delivered by the justices into King's Bench.
By the early 16th century it had become the normal practice for coroners
to submit to the gaol delivery justices a record of all their inquests,
whether concerning homicide or other types of death, and also all their
abjurations. The vast majority are today among the King's Bench records
in the Public Record Office. It is therefore likely that the eleven Sussex
abjurations calendared at the end of this article were the only ones received
after 1515 by Sussex coroners outside the liberty of the Cinque Ports, from
which such returns were not made.
There was, however, an interesting case of sanctuary seeking in 1521 which
did not result in abjuration. On 9 April two Chichester labourers, William
Gogen and Simon Saunder, were indicted of burglary before the J.P.'s at
Chichester and the next day they were found guilty and sentenced to death.
Exactly a week later Richard Sutton, the sheriff's deputy, escorted them
to the gallows on Broyle Heath near Chichester and hanged them. In the process,
while jumping from a ladder placed against the gallows, William fell to
the ground still half-alive, the weight of his body having broken the rope.
Richard promptly rearrested him, but before he could hang him again, six
Chichester men—Richard Inskipp, a pardoner, Hugh Lasselles, Hugh Lyberd
and Humphrey Taylour, clerks, and Humphrey and Benet Holmes, friars—with
a physician named John Fesisian of Downley and others assaulted Richard
and the bailiffs, serjeants and ministers who were helping him, rescued
William from them and took him to Chichester cathedral.
What became of him afterwards is not recorded, but of the rescuers Richard
Inskipp and Humphrey Holmes were outlawed in the county court held at Lewes
on 31 August 1525 and John Fesisian, Hugh Lasselles, Hugh Lyberd and Humphrey
Taylour, having surrendered, appeared in King's Bench and went sine die
(of business adjourned indefinitely with no appointed date).
Because of their great inherent interest, from the human, social, legal
and many other points of view, it is regrettable that so few Sussex abjurations
survive from the later Middle Ages. Fortunately, however, the period which
is amply documented, the reign of Henry VIII, is much more interesting than
any other. It was the time during which the law relating to sanctuary and
abjuration was frequently changed as part of the gradual Tudor campaign
against the privileges of the medieval Church and culminated in the virtual
abolition of the practice of abjuration. The story embodied in the relevant
statutes has been worked out. These Sussex cases show how the changes were
applied.
First, however, there are certain aspects common to all eleven cases which
call for comment. One is that the ten men and one woman concerned confessed
to having committed ten homicides, one assault and five burglaries or thefts.
By contrast, in the Middle Ages many more abjurors confessed to burglary
or theft than to homicide. The comparison is interesting, but too much significance
should not be read into it, eleven being a very small sample.
Another point of contrast between these Tudor abjurations and the medieval
ones is that only six of the eleven abjurors confessed to having committed
felonies in or near the place where they took sanctuary; these were all
committed shortly before, and undoubtedly they took sanctuary in order to
avoid arrest. The other five confessed to felonies committed in Essex a
fortnight before taking sanctuary in Cumberland, Rutland and Norfolk some
two years before (Nos. 5, 7, 8) and at Berwick upon Tweed eleven years earlier
(No. 2). With the possible exception of the first, these five men must have
had some other reason for seeking sanctuary than the felonies to which they
confessed.
Some of them may have committed another more recent and more local offence,
although it is strange that they did not mention it as they had nothing
to lose by doing so. Only six of the abjurors were natives of Sussex. Two
were Londoners (Nos. 6, 7), one from Essex (No. 1), one from Kent (No. 2)
and one from Bristol (No. 10); but only three of these five confessed to
distant offences alone, although the other two (Nos. 6, 10) had committed
felonies in Kent and Norfolk before committing others in Sussex for which
they took sanctuary. The other two distant felonies, in Cumberland and Norfolk,
were committed by Sussex men.
In other respects our Tudor abjurations are more like the medieval ones.
They present the typical Sussex feature of only a very short delay between
the taking of sanctuary and abjuration. Philip Cooper, a county coroner,
did not record the date of taking sanctuary in the four cases at which he
officiated (Nos. 3, 7, 9, 10), but, from the dates of the felonies confessed
to, it could not have been more than eight, eighteen and nine days respectively
before the abjuration in three of them. He was one of the two contemporary
county coroners and his district was large enough to explain a delay of
a few days in arriving at the church.
Elsewhere, the Chichester and Battle coroners had no travelling problem
and the coroner of Hastings rape a smaller one, and the time lapsing between
taking sanctuary and abjuration in their areas was normally only two or
three days. The longest gap was of eight days (No. 4) in Chichester, but
the felon may have confessed before the coroners some days earlier. One
abjuration in Hastings rape (No. 5) occurred on the day sanctuary was sought.
Whether the fact that none of the abjurors exercised their right of remaining
in sanctuary for forty days before abjuring means that Sussex churches at
this time were so well guarded that escape was unlikely or that the coroners
discouraged delays, it is impossible to say. It is not stated in the records
exactly who was responsible for the guard duty and for its organisation.
In only three cases are we told exactly where within the sanctuary the
ceremony of abjuration occurred: once it was in the church itself (No. 11)
and twice at the gate—of Chichester cathedral and Ninfield church (Nos.
6, 8). A group of local men was always required to attend the ceremony and
in Sussex in the later Middle Ages it seems to have consisted of twelve
freemen of the hundred, including the constables. This probably continued
to be the practice under the Tudors, but only two of our records give any
direct information.
In the one Battle case (No. 2) it is stated that four named men and others
were present, while the record of the final Chichester abjuration (No. 11)
has a space for the insertion of witnesses' names and it was assumed that
the first would be a constable. Unfortunately this document, which was compiled
in piecemeal fashion, was left uncompleted. In those cases in which the
coroner committed the abjuror to a tithingman and his tithing or to the
constable of the hundred, as discussed below, these must also have witnessed
the abjuration. There is no evidence that these or other groups ever confirmed
the confessions, as sometimes happened in the Middle Ages, but they probably
continued to be asked the value of the abjurors' lands and goods. Our eleven
abjurors, probably because so many were from other parts of the country,
had even less property that their medieval counterparts; none is said to
have had any lands or goods, although only two (Nos. 7, 9) are specifically
said to have had none.
It is now possible to turn to the changes introduced in the reign of Henry
VIII. The courts then maintained that a homicide who took sanctuary before
his victim had died could be removed from sanctuary before the death with
impunity, since he had not committed a felony until death had occured! One
of our abjurors (No. 4) might have been removed from sanctuary under this
ruling, but was not.
The first statute to change the law relating to abjurations was promulgated
in 1529 (21 Henry VIII, c.2). It introduced two innovations. One empowered
coroners to appoint a day and time for abjurations, felons refusing to depart
at that time losing the benefit of sanctuary and being removed to prison
to be dealt with for their offences. This could be interpreted as allowing
coroners to forbid abjurors to spend the customary forty days in sanctuary.
Certainly, as already noted, Sussex abjurors spent comparatively little
time in sanctuary, but so they did before 1529 and there is no evidence
that they were later forced to leave sanctuary before they were ready.
The second innovation of 1529 was that immediately after his confession
every abjuror was 'to be marked with an hote yron upon the brawne of the
thombe of the right hande with the Signe of an A. to the entent he may the
better be knowen amonge the Kynges Subjectes that he was abjured.' Previously
abjurors had seldom reached their ports not only because they were usually
unescorted but also because their appearance was unremarkable. No mention
is made of the dress of our eleven abjurors, but the later medieval practice
was almost certainly continued: they were allowed their ordinary clothes,
provided that they were bare-headed and bare-foot.
Before this statute the other medieval practice of giving the abjuror
a cross as a sign of the Church's protection was invariably maintained,
it being placed in his right hand by the coroner (Nos. 1-5); but this was
easily disposable. Hence the branding of the right hand, to make it more
dangerous for abjurors to escape and remain at large in the country.
All the subsequent Sussex cases record that the abjurors were branded
as required. The first of these (No. 6), a Chichester case of 1530, mentions
both the branding and the delivery of the cross, but, with the exception
of the other Chichester case (No. II), no mention is afterwards made of
the cross. It would seem that most Sussex coroners regarded the branding
as a substitute for it, although its purpose was quite different.
A much more drastic change came in 1531 (by 22 Henry VIII, c.l 4). This
was nothing less than the abolition of abjuration of the realm and the substitution
for it of abjuration to one of the newly appointed sanctuaries within England.
The abjuror was to be directed to the sanctuary of his own choice by the
coroner and escorted there by constables and other officers. He still had
to be branded with the letter A and had to swear to remain in his chosen
sanctuary for the rest of his life, death being the penalty for being found
at large outside it without the king's special pardon and licence, as it
had previously been for an abjuror found within the realm.
Our eleven abjurations fall naturally into two categories—those made
before and those made after the passing of this Act. The first six are abjurations
of the realm, like all medieval abjurations. But whereas in the Middle Ages,
in Sussex and elsewhere, some abjurors chose their ports for leaving the
country while others had theirs assigned to them by the coroner, none of
these Tudor abjurors was said to have been given a choice.
Rye was assigned to three, Portsmouth to two and Hastings to one. Portsmouth
was assigned to Chichester abjurors, Rye and Hastings mainly to those from
the extreme east of the county. The Sussex coroners thus continued their
medieval practice of naming only nearby ports, in contrast to the practice
in most other counties, but Rye had displaced Winchelsea in popularity since
medieval times. The oath of abjuration before 1531 was exactly the same
as in the Middle Ages and our six records emphasise that the abjurors were
never to return to the kingdom ' without the king's special licence and
forgiveness.' The two abjurations (Nos. 1, 5) recorded by Nicholas Tufton,
coroner of Hastings rape, use instead the phrase ' without the special licence
and forgiveness of the present king,' a limitation for which there is no
trustworthy legal support.
The five abjurations made after the 1531 statute are markedly different.
The abjurors were all allowed to choose the sanctuary in which to spend
the rest of their lives and all chose Beaulieu abbey in Hampshire, but their
choice may not have been very free. Whereas most felons would have known
the names of several ports, the new sanctuaries were not only few in number
but also very recently established. Beaulieu was the nearest to Sussex,
but the coroner may often have had to tell the abjurors of this.
There is some uncertainty in our records as to the new form of the oath.
but by this date Tufton's saving clause (No. 8) was no different from the
rest. In the matter of escorting abjurors to their destinations the statute
of 1531 seems to have made obligatory what was already being done in some
cases. In the Middle Ages the Sussex abjurors, like those from most other
counties, were not escorted to their ports and it is therefore unlikely
that many ever reached them. In 1527, however, Philip Cooper committed an
abjuror to the tithingman and tithing of Poling with instructions that they
were to lead him ' from town to town by the right road towards the port,'
which was Hastings (No.3).
No other Sussex coroner is known to have taken such a precaution until
required to do so by the 1531 statute. Thereafter in only one case (No.
8) is this not said to have been done and that was in the year 1531. It
may be significant, however, that three of the other abjurations (Nos. 7,
9, 10) were received by Philip Cooper, a coroner who was already converted.
He committed each abjuror to one of the constables of the hundred to lead
him to Beaulieu. What was probably intended in these cases was what was
ordered in the final Chichester case (No. 11), when the abjuror was committed
to the constable of the parish ' to lead him from constable to constable
to the sanctuary without injury or danger to his life.'
Escape en route was in these circumstances much less possible than in
the Middle Ages and it may be significant that none of the five escorted
abjurors was later found at large in the country, although one of them (No.
11) was subsequently arrested and then given a charter of pardon because
the homicide to which he had confessed as to a felony was found to have
been committed in self-defence. By contrast, of the other six, one (No.
6) was later found and hanged and another (No. 4) was later outlawed.
The last known Sussex abjuration was made in 1533. In 1538, during the
dissolution of the monasteries, Beaulieu abbey was surrendered to the Crown
and its sanctuary rights virtually came to an end. There were then 32 sanctuary
men there. The debtors were allowed to remain there for life and one homicide
obtained a pardon. None of the Sussex abjurors is known to have been there
at that time. Some or all may never have arrived or been admitted; the rest
may well have escaped or died before 1538.
It is understandable that in these ever-changing conditions sanctuary
seeking and abjuration should have died out, especially after 1540, in which
year a statute (32 Henry VIII, c. 12) abolished all sanctuaries except churches,
chapels and churchyards, setting up eight ' places of privilege ' instead.
Men could still abjure from churches, chapels and churchyards to these '
places of privilege,' but not for wilful murder, rape, burglary, robbery,
arson, or for aiding and abetting such felonies; and no ' place ' was to
hold more than twenty abjurors at the time.
Westminster was the nearest to Sussex, but is not known to have been used
by Sussex men. In 1547 Protector Somerset restored the privilege of sanctuary
to all felons as at Henry Vlll's accession except for wilful murder and
aggravated theft (I Edward VI. c.l2, para.9). but this statute did not mention
abjuration. After one ambiguous Act (I James I, c.25, para. 7), the privilege
of sanctuary was finally abolished in 1624 (21 James I, c.28, paras. 6-7).
The following Appendix consists of a translation of the original abjurations,
with the omission of much of their repetition and common form and with the
dates and place-names given in their modern forms. Vernacular words have
been retained and printed in single inverted commas. Anything relevant which
occurred after an abjuration is noted beneath it in square brackets. In
most cases this is merely the delivery of the record to the gaol delivery
justices and then on to King's Bench. Philip Cooper was the only coroner
to submit his abjurations in the form of letters to the justices.
By R.F.Hunnisett
Top of Page main
page: www.yeoldesussexpages.com
The Last Abjurations
ForeWord
